Authorities must decide the petitioner’s representation after hearing her within 60 days.

The petitioner operated a licensed Country Composite Ahata at Kawardha, District Kabirdham. She alleged that private respondents were operating unauthorized roadside stalls, Ahatas/chakhna centres, and liquor sale or consumption points near her licensed premises, thereby affecting her business and right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

She had submitted representations dated 07.07.2026, 09.07.2026 and 11.09.2026 to the authorities seeking removal of the alleged illegal establishments and initiation of legal action.

In the writ petition, she initially sought directions for protection of her licence and business, removal of unauthorized vendors and centres, and action under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. During hearing, however, counsel limited the relief to a direction for consideration of the petitioner’s representation. The State expressed no objection to such consideration.

Whether the competent authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation concerning alleged illegal vendors and unauthorized liquor-related establishments in accordance with law

Whether the Court should grant the substantive reliefs sought against the private respondents, including removal of alleged illegal establishments and initiation of criminal or excise proceedings

The Court applied the constitutional protection of the petitioner’s right to carry on an occupation or business under Article 19(1)(g), observing that the alleged operation of illegal vendors could affect that right.

It also applied the procedural principle that a competent administrative authority must consider and decide a duly submitted representation in accordance with law after providing the affected person an opportunity of hearing.

Although the petitioner relied on the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, the rules framed thereunder, the Excise Policy and tender conditions, the Court did not adjudicate the alleged statutory violations or determine the liability of any private respondent.

The Court noted the petitioner’s limited submission that the presence of alleged illegal vendors was affecting her livelihood and business protected under Article 19(1)(g).

Since the State had no objection to consideration of the representation, the Court considered it appropriate to leave the factual and legal examination of the allegations to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4—the Collector and District Excise Officer.

The authorities were therefore required to examine the petitioner’s application in accordance with law, after affording her an opportunity of hearing, rather than the Court itself directing removal of the establishments or ordering prosecution.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.

No direct order was issued for removal of the private respondents’ establishments, cancellation or protection of the petitioner’s licence, or initiation of criminal or excise proceedings.

The Court left all merits open and clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the substantive allegations.